POST TWO OF TWO
C. Bonner reminded us in 1937 that “…no part of the original writings, Hebrew of Aramaic, which entered into the composite work, has survived in the original Language. The Greek version, in which the church read enoch , also disappeared.” (Campbell Bonner, The Last Chapters of Enoch in Greek, p3) Despite this difficiency, I Enoch had long been recognized as “the largest and, after the canonical book of Daniel, the most important of the Jewish apocalyptic works which have so recently (this in 1916) come to be recognized as supplying most important data for the critical study of NT ideas and praseology.”(A.L. Davies, “Enoch, Book of,” in Hastings, ed., Dictionary of the Apostolic church 1:334.)
This work, which had existed before this, was translated into Ethiopic about A.D. 500 (O. Ploger, “Henochbucher, “Die Religion in Geshichte und Gegenwart, p: 222). The leaves of Enoch the University of Michigan received in 1930 were matched by a few more from the same text that Frederick Kenyon found a year later, all from the 4th century. Van Andel tells us that it was typical of the “edifying literature in Christian circles from the 3rd to the 6th(?) centuries,” ((Van Andel, Structuur, p 3) again reminding us of the influential place enochian literature had in the literature of the early Christian church.
Jellineck’s story of finding Hebrew Enoch texts in the Bet ha-Midrash reminds us that enoch was not simply influential among the Christians, but it’s theological influence was felt among the Jews. In 1859 Jellinek suggested a Hebrew enoch had circulated among the jews. “The Karaite Salmopn b. Jerucham in the 10th century, Moses of Leon [12th century] and the Zohar toward the end of the 13th century all cite from a Book of Enoch” . In Volume 2 of the Bet ha-Midrash, Jellinek gives us the text of a “Book of Enoch”…” (BHM, 2:xxx-xxxii) The next volume he notes the Great Hechalot, a book, “parts of it appear in the Book of Enoch, that provided the source of the Christian-Essene and Jewish-Essene literature.” (BHM 3:vii, 83-102)
In Bet ha-Midrash, volume 4, jellinek refers to text to a Life of Enoch from the Sefer ha-Yashar, using even older sources and announced to the world that this provided “a new confirmation that the entire Enoch saga and the Enoch books were known to the Jews, and were only allowed to fall into neglect after the time when a growing Christianity displayed a dogmatic preference to this cycle (Sage)”. Thus, the Christian adoption of enochian literature, soured the Jews on Enoch. (BHM 4:xi-xii, 129-132)
In volume 5, in 1872 jellinek announced the vindication of his work on Enochian literature. “In [Bet ha-Midrash] III, 1855, p. xxiii, I suggested that several version of the Hechalot themes attributed to the Wisdom of Enoch must be in existence. And so also the primitive…Book of Enoch was put together from various smaller works, which had been traced back to Enoch!” The study of Jewish apocalyptic literature was again initiated in 1857 by M. Lilgenfeld and it revealed that (thanks to references in by XII patriarchs, Jubilles and other works, that Enoch was “the first” and “most important” of all the Palestinian apocalypses.” (Pierre Batiffol, “Apocalypses Apocryphes,” in V. vigouroux, ed. Dictionaire de la Bible, 1895-1912 1:757) “Of all the Palestinian writings” (the wonderful Catholic scholar J.B. Frey said), “the book of enoch seems to have surpassed all the others in antiquity and in importance.” (frey, “Apocryphes,” 1:357)
Though “Christian enoch” (i.e. the Greek Enoch) was important, the discovery of Enoch among the dead sea scrolls in such great numbers is the discovery showing Hebrew Enoch was first. In 1956, Father J.T. Milik announced eight different enoch fragments among the dead sea texts. I Enoch in Aramaric and an Aramaic book III (which was superior to the Ethiopian in some ways). There was also an epistle of Enoch to Shamazya and his friends.
F.M. Cross noted that the Pesher on Habakkuk was “an unknown work related to the Enoch Literature.” (Frank M. Cross, “The Manuscripts of the Dead Sea Caves,” Biblical Archaeologist 17 (feb 1954) 3) Even the fantastic Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran begins with five columns that “deal with the birth of Noah in a manner that has no direct relationship at all to the brief biblical account in Genesis 5, 28-29,” but instead “resembles chapter cvi of the Book of Enoch in most essential points.” Terrien, “Enoch, Books of,” 10:394)
I hope it is becoming clear that one cannot read the old testament, the new testament, the early Judao-christian Literature or any judao-christian sacred literature from the earliest periods without coming face to face with enochian literature. When you read the Old or New Testament, you are reading references to enochian literature. You just didn’t know it. Many of the early doctrinal roads, passed through enochian influence.
All scholars on enoch will agree that the ultimate beginning of the enochian literature (or it’s many, many references and parts) remain completely unknown to history. However, all agree that the book of enoch derives from earlier writings. This is obvious since, many of the oldest sources we have claim to, go back to enoch.
You can seek for the source material for the most ancient of texts (which never turn up) or simply accept the assertion of the writers of Jubilees and the 12 Patriarchs do and assume that there was an Enoch which himself began the enochian literature just as we assume there was a Moses who wrote and began the Mosaic traditions we all discuss.
As far as what were authoritative (“canonical”) to ancient Judeo-Christians, If you want, I can I reference many, many other texts which were sacred to early Judao-Christianity.
Referencing texts that were important to early Judo-christianity demonstrates not only the deep and firm contextual milieu of the doctrine of pre-mortal existence of spirits in this time period, but the pervasiveness of the doctrine as well. Religious Historians as well as Readers with greater historical understanding see the importance of this.
The base and core doctrinal themes of early Judao-christianity are somewhat independent of their various textual sources (if one is looking at themes that remain constant over a large portion of early Judao Christian Literature – these are the consistent, “orthodox doctrines” of ancient Christianity).
For example, whether I am a 21st century historian reading New Testament Jude who himself is quoting from Enoch as a scriptural reference, or if I am a 1st Century Christian reading from the Enoch text itself, the theme
“Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all...,” (New Testament Jude 1:14-15)“
Is the same doctrine as enoch, whom the writer of New Testament Jude is quoting :
“Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them...” (Old Testament I Enoch ch 2)
When the writer of New Testament Jude is quoting old testament Enoch, he is not only quoting the same words from Enoch, but he is referring to the same doctrine as well. When Jesus and the apostles quote or refer to Enoch, they are referring to earlier scriptural texts, just as Jude is referring to an earlier scripture.
The same principle of doctrinal equivalence holds true for other Judao-christian texts which I quoted from, including :
The apocalypse of Sedrach
The apocalypse of Abraham
First Enoch
Second Enoch
Third Enoch
Ecclesiates (Old Testament)
The Gospel of Thomas
The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra
Clementine Recognitions
Job (Old Testament)
The Second treatise of the Great Seth
Testaments of the twelve patriarchs (Napthali)
The Jewish Haggadah (related to the Talmud)
The Jewish Zohar
The same principle holds true if one is quoting
Ancient Christian sermons
Ancient Christian Hymns
Ancient Christian Diaries
Ancient Christian novels
So, IndigoChild5559, the question still remains regarding support for your theory.
Can you provide historical data why you think R.H. Charles and Charlesworth, and the other historians who point out the same historical conclusion are wrong?
Clear
τωσιδρω
υρ τωειακ
